At this meeting the observers were allowed to vote. Anton Ertl
chaired most of the meeting.

The following topics were discussed (not always in this order):

Minutes of last meeting and standards document

The minutes of the last meeting contain a mistake: They claim that the
throw-iors proposal was referred for further clarification, but
actually it was accepted (this is also reflected in the standard
document). It was decided (10:0:1) to accept the minutes as is, and
write a correction in the next minutes. However, later Peter Knaggs
decided to actually make the correction in the 2007 minutes (which
were a draft until then anyway).

The standards document was reviewed and accepted as reflecting the
results of the last meeting (8Y:0N:3A).

Minutes, draft documents, and reports were published on the
www.forth200x.org web site. Anton Ertl promised to write a 2007 and a
2008 report for the Vierte Dimension (German FIG newsletter).
Peter Knaggs has not contacted Paul Frenger about publishing the
minutes in SIGPLAN Notices yet.

Accepting proposals into the standard document

The following proposals which had gone to a CfV were discussed and voted on:

The proposed
changes to the standard document were discussed, and additional
changes were asked for (additional documentation requirements, and
specifying the combined stack as obsolescent). These were added
during the meeting, and the result was accepted 10Y:0N:0A.

Removing obsolete words

Should words that were called obsolescent in Forth-94 now be removed
as obsolete? There was consensus that they should, the question was
how:

Remove them completely

Keep a list of names in an appendix

Keep names and specification in an appendix

Keep names and specification in an obsolete wordset

After some discussion, it was decided (11Y:0N:0A) to keep the names
and the specification in an appendix.

RfDs

No progress has been made there
because the original RfD submitters have not submitted new RfDs
adapted to the changed TO wording. The original RfD submitters should
be contacted (by Anton Ertl) and be asked to submit a revised RfD (and
eventually a CfV).

The discussions
centered mostly around some of the ambiguous conditions in the
proposal (in particular, that synonyms would not be tickable and
POSTPONEable). Several participants had a strong feeling that these
ambiguous conditions should be removed before the RfD becomes a CfV.
Otherwise, the proposal was found acceptable.

Leon Wagner reported
that in the code of Forth, Inc. customers '{' is actually used in
compile state several hundred times, so Forth, Inc. would not
implement a syntax based on '{'. Also, BigForth uses {
... | in a different way than proposed. There was some
discussion on how to resolve these conflicts, resulting in the
following syntax: {: ... | ... -- ... :}. Another RfD
will come out with this change.

Another point in the discussion was whether to allow several locals
definitions. Bernd Paysan intends to write an RfD for that.

Local buffers

There was quite a bit of discussion on that
issue. After the Forth200x meeting Leon Wagner and Stephen Pelc
worked out a completely new syntax which would allow writing code like
this:

It was pointed
out that someone uses F" for some other purpose, so a
different name would have to be used. Several other points that were
already made in the email discussion were repeated. In an off-line
discussion Stephen Pelc outlined his preferred solution of first
standardizing macros and then building directory-path words on top of
that.

Big proposals

The internationalization/localization and cross-compilation proposals
(which are not yet RfDs) were discussed (but not very deeply, as most
or all participants were not very familiar with them, and they are
big), and it was suggested that they should be developed into RfDs.

For the cross-compilation proposal some revision of the existing
proposal was promised (apparently there were some advances since that
proposal was originally written); also Stephen Pelc, Leon Wagner, and
Bernd Paysan should sit down together and work out the RfD.

Future RfDs

Federico de Ceballos promised that he would submit RfDs on the issues
that he has worked on.

Next meeting

There will be another meeting before the next EuroForth. There was
some discussion whether it should be two days, and whether there
should be another meeting before the Forth-Tagung.
Anton Ertl